Well lets just ignore the fact that Larry did not actually say that on the day or on live tv. (It was a year later in a documentary).
Could you explain why he did say this? Why do you think he admitted it? Why would he do so on the day?
What part of this conspiracy idea is "reasonable".
It sounds very impressive and like you've special secret knowledge right up until you actually think about it with any depth.
Then it becomes pretty clear that what you claim isn't actually true and doesn't actually make sense.
Are you at the top of your game? you've immediately conceded that he used the term "pull it", an obvious anchor for my focus.
Anyone interested can simply google the words & phrase: Larry, Silverstein & "pull it".
The manner of the building's collapse appears to be "less than chaotic".
It collapsed due to fire. Larry Silverstein was referring to pulling the firefighters surrounding the building, which was recommended by the fire chiefs.
Of course, if you think it was a "controlled demolition", okay, care to provide details of that?
Yes. He said the words "pull it". What's your point?
You didn't address any of my questions. Why not?
And yes, people should google it. They will see that your initial claim that he said it on the day on live tv was false.
And if they look into it beyond the simple one line feed to people by conspiracy theory grifters, they will see the context for what he said.
They will also see that you weren't able to answer my questions at all.
You can't explain why he would say that. You can't explain why he would say so on live tv the day of.
You can't explain how it makes sense in context of a conspiracy.
Because what your suggesting isn't reasonable. It's ridiculous the second you look at it and actually spend any thought on it.
And it's clear you haven't.
In which case, you needn't concern yourself with my thoughts (thoughts as opposed to proven facts).
Ideas tend, by their very nature, to be the forerunners of experiential verification.
Lol. I like when you guys use big vague words to pretend you're making a point.
However I'm highlighting the fact that you can't actually explain what your thoughts are here. Because like all conspiracy theories there isn't any depth to your claim here.
You can't answer my questions.
Why not?
I was extolling the virtues of having an imagination (on a collective human scale of course).
I doubt that my linguistic ability exceeds yours.
Russian hackers
Lol more big words to make no actual point and to avoid a very simple question.
You prove my point.
You can't answer my questions because you haven't actually thought about your conspiracy theory. You can't provide a reasonable explanation for why Larry Silverstien would say what he said. You can't provide one because it makes no sense. Because the conspiracy theory is very dumb when you think about it for more than five seconds.
You, on top of simply being wrong about factual things like when and where the quote was made, did not think about it.
According to you, there was a giant conspiracy to secretly plant explosives throughout building 7 and on the day, the guy in charge of the building decided to randomly and for no reason tell the world that he did this.
That doesn't make any sense my dude. That's a really silly thing to claim.
Why are you holding up as a "reasonable" conspiracy theory. It's the opposite.
My brief communiqués to you are intended, primarily, for the casual, bi-partisan reader who may be interested in further investigating the circumstances surrounding Building 7. That was the obvious intention of my initial post.
Again, with the big words and zero actual content.
What do you think is going to happen when people do look into building 7 and see that first of all, your initial claim was false?
What happens when they realise that the conspiracy doesn't make any sense and see that you've not actually provided any answers. In fact, you've done nothing but dodge very simple questions about your theory? (A very common thread for conspiracy theorists).
Do you expect people will be convinced that there's something to your claims by all of this?
Do you really think people are that stupid?
Honestly, if anyone is actually convinced Curious's posts, please speak up. Would love to hear the thought process there.
There have been investigations into building 7, including insurance investigations, they concluded it fell due to fire.
If you know something they don't, what is it?
Lots of buildings fell down in the Great Fire of London
That's why all modern buildings are built by "The Three Little Pigs Ltd."
Perhaps curiousity isn't related to a numeric evaluation of IQ in a linear fashion, religious belief isn't.
Right, back to the question, you have suggested "controlled demolition", what are the details of that controlled demolition?
As mentioned the investigations concluded fire, what do you know that they don't?
What makes you think that my opinion might differ from that of the investigators ???
Because you more than hint at it in the below post
You misunderstand me, there may have been compelling reasons to publish a particular conclusion.
Ergo, they might recognise, as I do, the peculiarity of structural failure of a non-combustible structure due to, ahem, combustion.
I apologise for being too subtle in my previous posts. Again, I wish only to picque the interest of the subjective reader.
If the clues lie outside of your comfort zone, you are unlikely to notice them.
Conspiracy theorists are deliberately obtuse and vague in order to hide the fact that they have nothing to say.
In this case it seems there is some innuendo from you, but no conspiracy, so I don't think anything to discuss.
The only really serious conspiracy that I bough into was that Bush Senior arranged the hit on JFK and was rewarded with the Presidency. Quite a bit to this CT and this little snipit was what convinced me in the end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft3eGWZd7LE
Case closed 🙂
I watched a documentary once (YouTube) which put forward the theory that one of the agents in the car behind, stood up after the first shot and drew a rifle. The car accelerated and he accidentally discharged the gun. The presentation was very compelling. The evidence seemed to tie-in the agent's shot with the other shots.
But then you're also telling the reader to stop thinking at a certain point.
You're telling them to ignore the fact your initial claim was false.
You're telling them not to actually look into the context around the quote.
You're telling them not to think too hard about how the conspiracy would actually work.
Like all conspiracy theories, to believe this one you have to shut off your brain at the surface level factoid you've presented (and was wrong about.)
You can use as many big words as you like, bit you aren't actually applying that much thought to the conspiracy.
Nor are you using any of your big words to make any statements of substance. You now appear to be backing away from your initial stance, but it's hard to tell because you don't seem to have the courage to actually state things directly.
It all smacks of theater. Like a kid pretending to be smart.
And just a reminder, you've dodged several questions all because they make you uncomfortable.
We are all aware of the "clues" you presented and got wrong. You haven't presented anything outside of anyone's comfort zone.
The fig rolls is award winning
So you think it was secretly rigged for a controlled demolition prior to Sep 11 and nobody noticed?
One of the veterans of this theory suggested a half dozen people could have done it over a couple weeks.
A person here says that Larry Silverstein did not say "a decision was made to pull it" on the day of 9/11
The same person concedes though, that Larry Silverstein himself said he said it
I apologise for there being 3 syllables in "Silverstein" and 4 in "apologise" - dats languidge 4 ya King Mob !!!!
Let me stick to absolutes -
The explanation for the towers falling was that intense heat from the burning aviation fuel caused steel to weaken
Building 7 was not hit by a plane
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f6ec3b6ae14cc6cd4a0e3a3374e0ef7b.svg)
